After Michigan, California Joins in the New Wave of Banning Date of Birth in Rental Property History Screening

Back in August, Michigan revealed the latest news that shook the rental housing industry’s bones. The date of birth is one of the most important pieces of identifying information, and anyone who has ever had to pick up a prescription or verify who they are over a phone call can know how important it is. Michigan, in a surely bright moment, decided that it was going to hide this vital piece of information, making it immeasurably more difficult for any screening provider to determine who they are screening.

Back in August, Michigan revealed the latest news that shook the rental housing industry’s bones. The date of birth is one of the most important pieces of identifying information, and anyone who has ever had to pick up a prescription or verify who they are over a phone call can know how important it is. Michigan, in a surely bright moment, decided that it was going to hide this vital piece of information, making it immeasurably more difficult for any screening provider to determine who they are screening.

As of September 1st, the California Supreme Court made it official. During the case of All of Us or None v. Hamrick, in which the organization designed to aid those previous incarcerated, All of Us or None went to court regarding the proper sealing of records. This court case sided with All of Us or None, and in the end cited similarly to that of Michigan.

“As to the third cause of action, plaintiffs note that Rule 2.507(c) requires that courts exclude “date of birth” and “driver’s license number” from a court’s electronic court index.”

As of September 1st, the California Supreme Court made it official. During the case of All of Us or None v. Hamrick, in which the organization designed to aid those previous incarcerated, All of Us or None went to court regarding the proper sealing of records. This court case sided with All of Us or None, and in the end cited similarly to that of Michigan.

“As to the third cause of action, plaintiffs note that Rule 2.507(c) requires that courts exclude “date of birth” and “driver’s license number” from a court’s electronic court index.”

Through the case, it was noted that their right to privacy was infringed on. They argued that the use of ‘white out’ or programmed techniques on data bases to aid in their right to privacy were not absurd and be easily implemented to protect their rights.

Through the case, it was noted that their right to privacy was infringed on. They argued that the use of ‘white out’ or programmed techniques on data bases to aid in their right to privacy were not absurd and be easily implemented to protect their rights.

“Government Code section 68152, subdivisions(c)(8) and (c)(10) each provide that “records shall be destroyed, or redacted in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” Thus, Government Code section 68152, subdivisions (c)(8) and (c)(10) specifically incorporate section 11361.5, subdivision (c)’s requirements, including the mandate that the “the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest or conviction never occurred.””

“Government Code section 68152, subdivisions(c)(8) and (c)(10) each provide that “records shall be destroyed, or redacted in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” Thus, Government Code section 68152, subdivisions (c)(8) and (c)(10) specifically incorporate section 11361.5, subdivision (c)’s requirements, including the mandate that the “the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest or conviction never occurred.””

This case was going to be reviewed for the explicit purpose of trying to keep Dates of Birth in public record, however, on September 1st, the California Supreme Court refused. This means going forward that California will begin redacting dates of birth from public files. For screening companies such as those that provide records for the rental housing industry, this means matching identities, such as to find out who may or may not be dangerous, may become very difficult.

Getting it overturned may not be an easy road moving forward CIC will keep you updated as this issue progresses.

This case was going to be reviewed for the explicit purpose of trying to keep Dates of Birth in public record, however, on September 1st, the California Supreme Court refused. This means going forward that California will begin redacting dates of birth from public files. For screening companies such as those that provide records for the rental housing industry, this means matching identities, such as to find out who may or may not be dangerous, may become very difficult.

Getting it overturned may not be an easy road moving forward CIC will keep you updated as this issue progresses.

This page is made available by Contemporary Information Corp. (CIC) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey CIC’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of CIC, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. The information on this page is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. CIC makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. CIC expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall CIC or any of its partners, employees, or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Leave Your Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe

Subscribe for (occasional) email updates!